Prison Officers Association v Iqbal (Rev 1)

False imprisonment ordinarily requires an intentional positive act which directly and immediately causes a complete loss of liberty. A failure to release a person will not generally suffice unless the claimant has a legal right to be released and the defendant owes the claimant a specific duty to release them.

Prison officers who withdrew their labour did not falsely imprison prisoners who consequently remained in their cells. Their conduct was an omission, and the prisoners had no right against those officers to be released under the normal prison regime. Moreover, the governor’s lawful decision to keep the prisoners in their cells prevented the strike from being the direct and immediate cause of their confinement.

A sentenced prisoner ordinarily left his cell for work, exercise and other activities under the prison regime. The appellant trade union called an unlawful national strike without warning. Most officers did not report for duty, and the governor consequently ordered the prisoners to remain in their cells.

Leeds County Court declared that the respondent had been falsely imprisoned for about six hours and awarded £5 nominal damages. The union appealed against liability. The respondent cross-appealed against the damages award.

The central questions were whether the officers’ withdrawal of labour amounted to an actionable restraint, whether it directly caused the confinement, and, if liability existed, what compensation was appropriate.

1. By a majority, the appeal was allowed and the false imprisonment claim was dismissed. The Master of the Rolls and Smith LJ held that the officers’ failure to work was an omission rather than a positive act imposing restraint. False imprisonment does not ordinarily arise from a failure to release someone unless that person has a legal right to be released and the defendant owes a corresponding duty to release them. The respondent had no right against an individual officer to be let out of his cell under the usual regime, and the officers’ employment duties were owed to their employer rather than personally to each prisoner.
2. The tort also required the defendant’s conduct to be the direct and immediate cause of the confinement. The strike foreseeably occasioned the governor’s response, but her lawful decision to keep prisoners in their cells intervened. At the latest from her order at 9.30 am, the strike was not the direct and immediate cause of the respondent’s confinement.
3. Sections 12 and 13 of the Prison Act 1952 authorised the respondent’s detention within the prison and placed him in the governor’s legal custody. The Master of the Rolls left open whether those provisions alone would have exonerated the officers. He considered that unauthorised positive restraint by an officer, particularly in bad faith, might present a different case.
4. Smith LJ further considered that false imprisonment requires an intention to deprive the claimant of liberty. Reckless disregard of a confinement known to be a likely consequence would suffice. She found that requirement satisfied, but the claim nevertheless failed because the necessary actionable act and direct causation were absent.
5. Sullivan LJ dissented on liability. He regarded the organised refusal to implement the governor’s standing regime as a positive act of disobedience which procured the confinement. In his view, the governor had no practical choice but to keep the cells locked, so the officers directly caused the loss of the prisoners’ permitted liberty.
6. The cross-appeal became academic. All three judges nevertheless agreed that £5 was indefensibly low if liability had existed. Confinement to a cell instead of enjoying six hours of customary activity represented real loss, for which £120 would have been appropriate.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By a majority, allowed the union’s appeal and dismissed the false imprisonment claim. The respondent’s cross-appeal on damages became academic, although the court agreed that £120 would have been appropriate if liability had existed: [2009] EWCA Civ 1312.
2. Leeds County Court: His Honour Judge Shaun Spencer QC declared that the respondent had been falsely imprisoned for about six hours and awarded nominal damages of £5.